HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: Scientific American

How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28

2597 ratings | 436068 views
How do scientists determine the age of fossils that have been under the surface of the earth for thousands of years? Scientific American Editor Michael Moyer explains the process of radiocarbon dating. -- WATCH more Instant Egghead: http://goo.gl/CkXwKj SUBSCRIBE to our channel: http://goo.gl/fmoXZ VISIT ScientificAmerican.com for the latest science news:http://goo.gl/lHq0CH
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (520)
Md Mumtaz Alam (22 days ago)
How to determine carbon 12
Shaun White (25 days ago)
Its flawed because the amount of carbon 14 it had at death is not know, and will not ever be known.
Maximus Rapturous (1 month ago)
those pesky cosmic rays
Rick Knight (1 month ago)
Why do we still find C 14 in coal that is supposedly millions of years old? Maybe the global catastrophic flood occurred 4400 years ago changing the world as we know it. Don’t think science has proven the Bible wrong. Scientists presuppositions have assumed the present processes have not changed over time. Look into creation ministries for a biblical worldview, before assuming uniformitarianism is the correct axiom.
Nostalgia (1 month ago)
Great explanation. It had always confused me, now I can understand the history books better.
Wendy XX (1 month ago)
This helped my class a lot in what were learning! They send you the thanks of all thanks! Ill keep showing my class these types of videos because your awesome!
Casper Nilsson (1 month ago)
Kole Farace (2 months ago)
legit isnt helpful for my paper
Molotov With Lux (2 months ago)
#Radiocarbondating & how long (e. g. food) it lasts
o i (3 months ago)
Alguem do 7 4
Funny Video (3 months ago)
We can estimate the age by measuring the ratio of C-12 and C-14 ..... can we estimate the age by comparing the activity of C-14 in live and dead plant .. if yes then how🤔🤔???? Plz clear this point 🤯
Billy Boswell (4 months ago)
This all sounds nice, but it isn't accurate. It's an opinion. Carbon Dating Scientists have repeatedly said old fossils or rocks are over 4 Billion Years old when they are only 6,000 years old. That's wildly inaccurate.
feoysabroso (5 months ago)
Careful with those "s" "j" "z" etc, I'm wearing headphones, almost killed my ears, and I'm at only 50% of max volume... Use a de-esser or even a mic foam cover
Jason Gooden (5 months ago)
Birth certificates can be forged and trees sometimes get more than one ring in a single year, just saying.
aTYPICAL (5 months ago)
how can they say that the ratio of 14-c and other carbons is constant as long as the organism is alive and eating, when there are thousand and thousands of variables out there that may affect the result, this is a pretty baseless opinion, I can't believe how carbon 14 dating got accepted in today's science when it's results are nowhere close to accurate
The River of Faith (5 months ago)
Do you know of the single scientific dating method used for accurately dating any object? If so, what is it, and how does it work?
Christian Holmes (6 months ago)
hey guys want to be my freind
viveka bm (6 months ago)
how does nitrogen after hitting by cosmic rays becomes carbon
c.sagan (7 months ago)
Thank you then but i still uncomfortable i want to study all this
LNK (7 months ago)
cut the theatrics, lets see a demo. we all know that in theory, standard bricks are 115 mm thick, however all bricklayers know that 99.9% of them rarely go over 107mm. we don't want the children's version, we want to know how we can test the theory in practice. After all so much is often at stake when this stuff is used, That it should be taught to year seven kids. And it needs to be beyond doubt.
Brayden Boyle (8 months ago)
asim shah (8 months ago)
how do we remove or measure carbon 14 from fossil
herrozzy (8 months ago)
Damn this dude is hot
Pollution X (9 months ago)
how do you know how much carbon 14 did it originally have?
XDBro (10 months ago)
If carbon-14 is so high up in the atmosphere, how do animals get it? We're not exposed to the rays that change it, right?
Dowell Boys (10 months ago)
Alright. Take a small sample of my skin and see if your system is accurate.
srikanth Kanthi (10 months ago)
Paul Töpfer (10 months ago)
geile sau
Holden&HSVS05 (10 months ago)
Thanks mate that was really helpful.
Miguel Nieto (11 months ago)
jason sims (11 months ago)
And what tests were done over and over to the point that it became predictable to prove the range of age? Lolz
ahmed hamada (11 months ago)
does the ending remind anyone of the Air France airline's ending music in its tutorial or any airline? :D
jasper+achternaam (1 year ago)
Lovely video, didnt take long for the religious nuts to take over the comment section on this one
Adrian Piejko (1 year ago)
All of it is one massive assumption
Stuart Law (1 year ago)
Isn't right precious doesn't works
Danny Hauger (1 year ago)
Great classroom resource, thanks!
kennyw (1 year ago)
Related to comments below: No dinosaur bones have been discovered. What have been recovered are dinosaur fossils. By definition, a fossil is any plant or animal with evidence of prehistoric life that is at least 10,000 years old. When minerals in ground water have replaced organic tissues, what is left is a solid or rock-like copy of the original specimen, referred to as a fossil. Furthermore, carbon 14 radiometric dating is not used to date fossilized specimens, but human made artifacts with precautions. For dating fossils, scientists measure isotopes from uranium-235, uranium-238 and potassium-40, because these radioactive elements have half-lives of more than a million years. A word of caution: A small, but vociferous, group of unscrupulous creation "scientists" with "PhD's" have hijacked the internet with YouTube videos and self-made publications claiming flagrant flaws in accepted dating methods and astronomical physics, only to bolster their entrenched claim for a "young earth," in the range of 8,000 to 12,000 years old. These opinions do not reflect the opinions of mainstream scientists, from any discipline, and their methods are not within current scientific research protocols and have not been subjected to legitimate peer review. Put simply, If the science is against you, attack the scientific method.
Dhiraj Kumar (1 year ago)
D V (1 year ago)
I still don’t believe in authenticity of the Carbon dating! Is there any other recent upgraded techniques that these paleochronologists use that could replace this carbondating?
Laura Peric (1 year ago)
That makes no sense whatsoever
Jerinho (1 year ago)
carbon team leader : remember the rule guys. only half of us may leave until the end of this half life. the rest please wait. so they'll think this fossil have lasted much longer. and save the rest of us in the museum. and live happily ever after. god bless us all
Mike Ashman (1 year ago)
Are there other ways carbon 14 is made? How can you explain carbon 14 being found in samples presumably millions of years old? I didn't make up the age of the geologic column, but some moron did according to carbon 14. Who can point me in the direction of unbiased knowledge?
J. Hendrix (1 year ago)
Ok so since dinosaur bones contain C14, it's impossible for them to be more than about 27,000 years old, right?
BezoomnyBratchny (1 year ago)
Can you give me a single example of an uncontaminated dinosaur fossils that contains c14?
Abigal Natale (1 year ago)
he looks like he was going to cry in the first 1 min 20 sec - meh
Ben Richards (1 year ago)
dozing off
Logan O'Neal (1 year ago)
Then who determines million years fossil about dinosaurs etc.. that we study as facts in schools?
BezoomnyBratchny (1 year ago)
Sam Sahiri Other radiometric dating methods are used that have longer half lives than carbon 14. Uranium-lead dating for instance. And potassium-argon dating.
Sandy Rephots (1 year ago)
Vine por las fuentes del Robot de Platón... Muy buena explicación, me gusta que hable pronunciando formalmente, así lo entiendo muy bien. Saludos!!
mahendar mahi (1 year ago)
nice explanation sir tq
Edward (1 year ago)
Thanks, Michael! Now I understand Carbon Dating !!! Room 206 in Toronto, Canada.
Great video, but one thing is to much simplified. Cosmic rays can´t transform protons to neutrons. The neutron i sligtly heavier than the proton and it is possible to convert neutrons to protons, radiating an electron, beta decay throug weak interaction.The cosmic rays transmut atoms in the atmosphere spreading out neutrons and protons.Most protons capture electrons and become hydrogen, but the neutral neutron continue and hit the most common element in the atmosphere, nitrogen. When nitrogen captures a neutron, it becomes an isotope of carbon by emitting a proton.
IllogicalSimplicity (1 year ago)
Perfect! This video was the most helpful video I found on Carbon Dating! I've been trying to understand how scientists date the Earth as oppose to fossils, this video explained things in such a way that I could apply the wisdom to understand dating the planet better, thank you!
Kevin TVO (1 year ago)
Hello, I am writing to follow up on my message dated August 29th regarding the use of your video "Basic Trigonometry Review" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZeE7Att_s) in our course SPH3U - Grade 11 University Prep Physics. The Independent Learning Center (ILC) is a bilingual, non-profit educational institution that develops distance education courses at the high school level for students in Canada. The ILC offers courses in English and French to individuals who wish to obtain credits leading to a high school diploma, to update their basic knowledge or to study in order to improve their skills. The ILC is part of TVO, the province's educational broadcaster. When you have a moment, could you please let me know if this video is available for licensing? Alternatively, if you wish to arrange a telephone call, please let me know when you might be available and I will reach out to you at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much in advance. Kindest Regards, Kevin
Scientific American (1 year ago)
Hi Kevin, So glad you liked the video! You can contact our licensing team at https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/contact-us/reprints-permissions/ to get more information about licensing that video, or any of our others that may fit your needs.
Braňo Rabatin (1 year ago)
But how do we know the initial ratio?
Who else doesn`t know what the heck is he talking? :(
Life (1 year ago)
cool video. to the point. what are the elements they use to see if something is older?
Richard Hambel (1 year ago)
carbon dating is such complete bullcrap it never actually works they dated a seal to be 10000 years old LMAO idiots dont believe this bullcrap there is ZERO evidence of anything being more than 10000 years old this carbon dating bullcrap is just propaganda to push the evolutionist agenda
danyel danyel (1 year ago)
your mom gay and your peener small
Adrian Nelson (1 year ago)
Crawl back to 4chan slug
Richard Hambel (1 year ago)
Lying my ass I did my research. You're just spewing garbage from your trap.
Hayden Case (1 year ago)
You are lying.
RealStoopKid (1 year ago)
Who was the first to use this style of dating and get these numbers? Also how do we not know that the amount of C14 hasn't been affected by say An Asteroid the size of Texas to emit more C14 into dead organisms ?
Stephen Patterson (1 year ago)
Willard Libby. (1947). Asteroids typically aren't "loaded" with Carbon, and are usually rock/ Iron or Ice, silicates. The "dino asteroid" was more like 6 miles; not the size of Texas. moreover a new, recent article suggests thusly: Bottke and his colleagues identified a particular cluster of asteroids that hadn't been studied much yet. Scientists can use computer models and an understanding of the physical forces that affect asteroids to essentially rewind time and determine where these fragments might have come from. In this case, they traced the fragments back to a giant asteroid cluster, whose largest body is now called (298) Baptistina. But there was more to the story. Bottke's team also noticed that the breakup of Baptistina occurred near an "escape route" out of the asteroid belt. In this region, the gravitational kicks produced by the planets, in this case Mars and Jupiter, can change the orbits of the fragments, enough to push some of them out of the asteroid belt and into Earth's path. (Actually, about 100 million years would pass between their escape from the asteroid belt and one asteroid's collision with Earth, but that's not so long on a geologic time scale).
iFlashboy (1 year ago)
1:16 HALF LIFE 3 CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lalande Lelouch (1 year ago)
شكرا <3
Mangesh Powar (2 years ago)
thank you... that helped a lot
Michael Groesbeck (2 years ago)
How do they know if radioactive decay is accelerated or not? Carbon Dating is still unreliable because no one can tell me the answer.
fourat garrach (2 years ago)
"elements that have much longer half lifes" like what ?
Cole Peterson (2 years ago)
You've just explained this better than 3 of my Geology professors. Thank you.
kingBRANDONcastle (2 years ago)
How do you know how much of Carbon 14 the animal originally had? How do you know the composition of the atmosphere in which the creature lived to base the answer on?
Pepe - (5 months ago)
+JSkillz That is because living organisms take in and expel carbon dioxide. This will leave the ratio of C12/C14 equal to that of the atmosphere. (Until death when CO2 is not exchanged) However his question is, how are we certain that previous ratios were the same as present day.
JSkillz (7 months ago)
My understanding is that you don't need to know the original amount of C14, the ratio of C12 and C14 is the same in every living organism. It's only when the organism dies that the C14 begins to decay, but crucially the C12 doesn't. Therefore, from the moment it dies the ratio between the two begins to change. Since we know the half life of the isotope, we can therefore know how long it's been since the organism died.
Great short and informative piece, great for teacher use!
Derrick G Wood (2 years ago)
Thank you!! My son, right as I tuck him in: "Dada, how do scientists know how old something is?" Me, cleverly and not showing my panic: "It's bedtime. Ask me first thing in the morning. I'll tell you all about it" as I run to the internet for answers! haha.
Dallas (2 years ago)
So what's the deal with C-14 being found in ancient fossils and rocks? Why is it that we find C-14 in things that are supposed to be billions of years old? We shouldn't be able to see any if it's older than 100,000.
Stephen Patterson (1 year ago)
you're gonna get bing'd on that statement, dude. organic / ex-organic samples only.
Dark Ninja (1 year ago)
Government Shill Because there are a ridiculous amount of carbon atoms in a fossil so even though the number of carbon 14 atoms halves ever 5730 years, there are still trillions left after all that time (or some ridiculous number anyways)
TANMAN47TANMAN (1 year ago)
Dallas Powers cite claim
Mike B (2 years ago)
Wow....you never mentioned climate change or social justice. That's pretty good!
Clayton (2 years ago)
This makes no sense. How does the death of an animal suddenly start the C14 decay clock? Why would that affect any atoms? Atoms don't care if you're dead or alive, they're just atoms.
Leo Sal (1 year ago)
Hi Clayton, C14 is always decaying, the difference is that when an animal dies, it stops replenishing it's C14 because it no longer eats so the ratio of C14/C12 starts decreasing. Hope this helps.
Tom Ato (1 year ago)
+Clayton Your comprehensive knowledge of physics and elaboration are intimidating..
Mark Bradshaw (2 years ago)
I'm no expert and probably getting this wrong, but... "How does the death of an animal suddenly start the C14 decay clock?" If the animal dies, it's no longer taking IN C14 (because it isn't eating), only LOSING it at that point. Death doesn't "trigger" anything here. You can just assume that's when the decaying starts because it isn't maintaining anymore. "Why would that affect any atoms?" The C14 atoms are unstable isotopes (because they are radioactive) so the nucleus can change throughout time. The C14 changes into Nitrogen randomly/unexpectedly. All they are doing is averaging out the rate that C14 will change into Nitrogen (in other words...."decaying"). On average, half of the C14 will turn into Nitrogen in 5,740 years. So....in a way, it IS predictable to some degree.
Dreeti Hazarika (2 years ago)
vey helpful..Thank you very much!😊
realman notcow (2 years ago)
Radioactive material with a half-life of 3 years takes longer to get through valves
Michael Ramos (2 years ago)
Sure, but how do we know how much carbon the animal will have after each half life?
Juan Andres Rivero (2 years ago)
Don't miss out on milliоns ооf s*xy girls neaaar уou => https://twitter.com/a8150f6c284867cb8/status/801992405775826944 Hоw Dоeеees Radiocaaarbon Dating Work Instaant Еgghead 28
Castiel Wnchstr (2 years ago)
TonneFan - my account was hacked by my brother. Darn that guy
TonneFan - (2 years ago)
+christine 2ne1aknsdxk wtf
Ethan SWAZIE (2 years ago)
Because of decay dude!
Abdulmaliq Attar (2 years ago)
I have a question pls< why C14 starts to change into c12 after the death of the Animal only? why not when he is alive?
Andy Schlachter (2 years ago)
The C-14 decays both during the animal's life and after the animal's death. However, it takes hundreds of years for any significant change to occur.
DavidZimbeck (2 years ago)
And carbon dating is also a crock of shit.
Luke Allen (2 years ago)
kill yourself you fat duck dockers
Tim Crinion (2 years ago)
Let's assume that C12 and C14 have 'reliable' half lives. How do we calculate how old something is unless we know the original C12:C14 ratio in an organism? Also, how do we know that radiation has collided with N14 at a constant rate throughout history? Wouldn't creatures near the poles be less exposed to it than creatures at the equator?
Rahim LaQuica (23 days ago)
Tim Crinion THANK YOU
Sophia Rodgers (1 month ago)
Cool_Movepar (4 months ago)
+IKilledYaWith I commented that a long time ago but no one saw that. People just see what they want. Who has the right to tell me that I can't vaguely give a answer? In my opinion, no one does. So, I can answer in anyway I see fit.
IKilledYaWith (4 months ago)
​+Cool_Movepar Then just tell them to go look up their question right away without pretending to answer it
In the graph, shouldn't the C12 line be way higher than the C14 curve?
Dennis Muhonen (2 years ago)
They may be on different scales. I'm sure the graph is purely for illustration.
Youkon Groundmas (2 years ago)
The video every religious person should be forced to watch every 6 months if they want to stay in their religion.
D D (2 years ago)
does this sound like bull shit to anyone else ?
Alex Donnelly (1 year ago)
lmao the kids in these comments
Chip Chapley (1 year ago)
Helena Cromwell hehehe college humour, doctorate of jurisprudence I gather?
Reena Popot (1 year ago)
its bullshit to you because you don't understand it.
Tom Ato (1 year ago)
method was awarded with nobel prize in chemistry and is therefore confirmed by scientific community
Youkon Groundmas (2 years ago)
xplain why.
KingPatron (2 years ago)
I'm the answer to everything
William Lockhart (2 years ago)
+God Risk I'm willing to take
KingPatron (2 years ago)
you would die from the immense intensity of the answer, that's why he's dead
William Lockhart (2 years ago)
Give the solution to the Rieman Hypothesis
Kevin Rex (2 years ago)
hahahah cool
Ramazan Parmaksiz (2 years ago)
How we know the first amount of carbon 14 in a fossil's body ?
Shad Gragg (6 months ago)
but the C14 original amount is the only thing that actually matters. If there is a difference between species C14 content, then if an animal starved to death the C14 rate would drastically be different from other samples, as it hasn't consumed food for a while and only gets C14 from the atmosphere. Next, you would have to have an assumed amount for their common food, to have an accurate sample of the C14 amount. Next we are assuming that C14 is constant and the N14 content of the atmosphere has been constant for the last 5730 years...
Proco Ultimatum (1 year ago)
And then?
doubletrouble469 (2 years ago)
You look at the carbon 12 measurement. It will be the original amount, since it doesn't decay.
Follower Of Christ (2 years ago)
So, you get millions of years older when you breath and eat vegetables? Haha! That's funny.
James King (3 years ago)
so how do they know it older? lol @2:08
mellenium sinha (3 years ago)
that,s a good explanation a student like me can get to the concept easily thanx
songkhla1 (3 years ago)
Simple and to the point yes, a good explanation. However you keep mentioning fossils. Are you dating fossils, or organic matter ie bone, plant residues, wood?
ACID (3 years ago)
So if we land to an alien planet and found a fossils what dating method should we use? boOooommm hahahahaha
ACID (3 years ago)
+Roddy Yang funny funny funny i forgot to laugh....I'm referring to a date/number/data which gives a lot of dates and the result comes down to choice. It's okay if you're on Earth cause time is already established.
Hari Taqwan Santoso (3 years ago)
How do we know the initial amount of carbon-14 in certain animal?
jino johnson (5 months ago)
+Tommy G. and proof of that "6000 years" would be ?yeah i got it bible right
Tommy G. (3 years ago)
we don't because the atmospheres c14 is not stable (equilibrium), therefore this method is not reliable in any way. If the atmospheres c14 had been stable from about "80,000 yrs" (I believe that the earth is 6,000 yrs old btw) ago then it would be realiable.
Neil Beaton (3 years ago)
+songkhla1 This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you. I don't know what that Hari Taqwan idiot was going on about.
songkhla1 (3 years ago)
+Hari Taqwan Santoso here is a better explanation. As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
songkhla1 (3 years ago)
+Hari Taqwan Santoso this is simple. The ratio of c14 (which depletes over time) to c12 (which remains constant) is actually what is being studied. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is an elephant bone or a grain of rice.
Chris Stuber (3 years ago)
I think an overly simplistic explaination does not answer of the real issues with C14 dating. There are issues of C14 deep in the column which cannot be easily explained. Why do living some living animals yield ancient carbon dating? Inconsistance data from same sample. The really old stuff that needs is really questionable is potassium/argon dating. I don't really understand how they derive these half life values. How do they know something has a half life of millons or billions? I think science at least needs to give all of the details, and make their disclaimers up front on testing methods. These methods are far from exact science and personally I think the argon test appear too large to be believeable and the C14 can't measure anything over 250,000 years old so you end up answers which are questionable. Science can only give a statistic about he objects decay, but translating that into "years" is dubious to be take as fact. Don't you think scientist should provide some comprehensive video to explain their confidence in this measurement.
Brian el (3 years ago)
C-14 has been found in dinosaur bones.
Brian el (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Google, "ad hominem fallacy."
Brian el (3 years ago)
+Roddy Yang It's so easy to call someone a dumbass over the internet, isn't it? Lol.
knexfan0011 (3 years ago)
+Brian L This doesn't disproove anything. If you always reduce something by half, there will always be something left. Walking halfway to the grocery store. Then half of the rest of the way and so on. You will never reach the grocery store, so there is always the chance of some C14 being left, no matter how long you wait.
Nicholas Campbell (3 years ago)
This video is a great introduction to radiometric dating. It provides a great baseline understanding of carbon-14 dating in a simple, easy to understand manner. It explains how the carbon gets into organic material and how the ratios work in calculating the half-life of a sample. However, this is too short to provide any in depth explanation of how carbon-14 is formed and some of the flaws of carbon-14 dating. For example, the description states “How do scientists determine the age of fossils” while radiocarbon dating is helpful in some cases, most fossils are too old to be radiocarbon dated. Overall, this video is a quick and basic introduction to radiocarbon dating.
Vlad III (3 years ago)
Too inaccurate. Disproven so many times.
Somebody else (3 years ago)
+Miles Stoj I know exactly what study you mean. However that study (I will try to edit this comment when I find it) was conducted to try to show the importance of controlling the factors of what you are carbon dating. The example used in that experiment was molsk shells, after carbon dating the molsk shells it showed that they where 20,000 years old however this was obviously false due to the reason no molsk can live anwhere close to 20,000 years. However the researchers where trying to show that the shells the carbon in the molsk shells they lived in where 20,000 years old, not the animal it self.
RidaAthar (3 years ago)
+Grizzly Man I just want to say that not all Muslims are racist or whatever you want to call them. Only some make them look bad, and no I'm not a Muslim but it doesn't mean that all Muslims are bad.
Vlad III (3 years ago)
+Grizzly Man Hovind! I know he isn't open-minded, that's why he's foolish. 
ΔKΔNomad (3 years ago)
+Miles Stoj Refrence?
Vlad III (3 years ago)
+Grizzly Man Science.
Asrat Mengesha (3 years ago)
What is the decaying speed of dead body of animals? is it linear or exponential? when do dead bodies start fossilizing? thanks.
Asrat Mengesha (3 years ago)
+Roddy Yang So, the same many things should apply for radio active dating.
Firomsa Yusuf (3 years ago)
Can someone tell me wtf a carbon 12 or carbon 14 or neutron is ion know wtf this nigga is talking about
Debries (3 years ago)
+Lebron Salvage here you go: An atom is made up out of electrons, protons and neutrons.  Protons and neutrons sit in the core, electrons orbit the core. The number of protons makes an atom do what it does. We name every number of these an element. The number of neutrons can be different. Not all variations are strong. The total of things in the core (proton + neutron) is the number you see. So C12 or N14 etc. The "weak" ones can break up over time, by a certain chance. This way we can calculate the age of something.
JJ Li! (3 years ago)
😀 very helpful
toymaker94566 (3 years ago)
After doing a little research as collaborated in the many posts, it becomes clear that Carbon dating is far from an exact science and hardly reliable beyond a few thousand years.  The claim that Carbon dating is accurate to 60 thousand years is highly unlikely and incapable of expressing the age of the earth by "millions" of years.  I love science but lets be honest, the science of carbon dating is more hype than a truly reliable method for scientific observation..............  Debunked.  :-\
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang OK genius, have a nice day........
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Educated men don't need to be so insulting. This is how a child speaks when he's out of his depth. I never said I was religious but since you asked, are you an atheist?
toymaker94566 (2 years ago)
+Roddy Yang Oh boy, another peer review genius...... Everything I stated above is 100% correct. Come back when you better understand the facts, then we have something to discuss. sheesh!.............................
Jean Dong (3 years ago)
Andre M (3 years ago)
The amount of assumptions you must make with radiometric dating should deem it a useless method.
Shad Gragg (6 months ago)
It was the petrified trees that they tested and got really far off results. as for Debries, lab results are rarely equitable to real-world results. We don't know the atmospheric composition from then, we don't know the C14 composition of plants and animals back then. It is all guestimation.
Andre M (3 years ago)
So when they date rocks that were formed from Mt. Saint Helens less than 50 years ago and the results show millions of years you're just going to ignore that and claim radiometric dating is reliable? haha.
Debries (3 years ago)
+Andre M not really. All I have to assume is that the proven physics is true. And proven physics is 1) repeatable under lab conditions 2) alligns with all certain calculated values 3) predicts scenario's and events that occur

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.